Purgatory/Gehenna

Major1 said:

A better question would be......why is this RCC teaching so important and acceptable to you that you would manufacture evidence for its existence?

The unpardonable sin is UN-FORGIVNESS! The rejection of the Lord Jesus Christ is the eternal sin that sends all unbelievers to the lake of fire......NOT Purgatory as there is no such thing.

Not one single verse that you posted applies to or suggests a place or a situation where man has to work of his sins. NOT ONE!

Again, why work so hard to prove something that does not exist?

Click to expand...

I have no idea how to interpret these sentences of yours - could you rephrase them?
1) "The unpardonable sin is UN-FORGIVNESS!" does this mean, The one sin the Lord cannot/willnot forgive in a man, is his refusal to forgive someone? If you mean something else, please clarify.

2) "The rejection of the Lord Jesus Christ is the eternal sin that sends all unbelievers to the lake of fire......NOT Purgatory as there is no such thing."
Does this mean that if a man rejects Christ, this sin results in the lake of fire. That this sin does NOT send him to purgatory. Is THAT what you mean here? Please clarify.

3) "Not one single verse that you posted applies to or suggests a place or a situation where man has to work of [off, I guess?] his sins. NOT ONE!"

Concerning (3), where did you get the (false) idea that purgatory allows a man to "work off" his sins? This is not Catholic teaching, which rather teaches that "in purgatory", souls are and must be passive, not active: they can do NOTHING to purge themselves, cleanse themselves, forgive themselves, or in any way "work" toward their own salvation. God and God alone purges remaining sins from their hearts - sins which are not mortal to the soul, but are venial and can be removed by the cleansing spiritual "fires" that purify the soul.

Concerning (2), the Church teaches that this one unforgivable sin is the intentional, willed refusal to ask forgiveness, of ANY grave sin. In other words, any sin can be forgiven men if they will repent of it, and seek the mercy of the all-merciful God. Stubborn refusal to repent, however, is "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" Who convicts men of their sins, thus allowing sincere repentance and forgiveness.

Mike Alexander said:

Gospel of Matthew 12:31 Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 12:32 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world, nor in the world to come.

Forgiveness in the world to come? Evidently sins can be forgiven in the world to come. Since nothing unclean can enter Heaven, the world to come cannot be Heaven. Since Hell is eternal punishment, the world to come cannot be Hell. What is this third place? This is a pretty explicit reference to a place we call purgatory.

Another reference to a place of purging is in the
Gospel of Luke: 12:46 The lord of that servant will come in the day that he hopeth not, and at the hour that he knoweth not: and shall separate him and shall appoint him his portion with unbelievers. 12:47 And that servant, who knew the will of his lord and prepared not himself and did not according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
12:48 But he that knew not and did things worthy of stripes shall be beaten with few stripes. And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more.

Click to expand...

Good addition to the discussion - thank you, Mike.

Mike Alexander said:

Gospel of Matthew 12:31 Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 12:32 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world, nor in the world to come.

Forgiveness in the world to come? Evidently sins can be forgiven in the world to come. Since nothing unclean can enter Heaven, the world to come cannot be Heaven. Since Hell is eternal punishment, the world to come cannot be Hell. What is this third place? This is a pretty explicit reference to a place we call purgatory.

Another reference to a place of purging is in the
Gospel of Luke: 12:46 The lord of that servant will come in the day that he hopeth not, and at the hour that he knoweth not: and shall separate him and shall appoint him his portion with unbelievers. 12:47 And that servant, who knew the will of his lord and prepared not himself and did not according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
12:48 But he that knew not and did things worthy of stripes shall be beaten with few stripes. And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more.

Click to expand...

That is just not the case Mike. There is once again no Scripture that validate Purgatory and that is the case with the ones you just posted.

YOU are reading into those verses what YOU want them to say because you believe in Purgatory.
The actual understanding is that there is NO sin committed that the Lord would not forgive because He died for ALL sin at any time.

As for Luke 12:46-48. you have once again interjected what YOU want to see instead of what is actually there.

Those Scriptures actually teach what most everyone else knows and that there will be degrees of punishment in hell.

As Christians we will appear before the judgement seat of Christ. Our judgment will not determine whether or not we are saved BUT instead it will be to give out the rewards we will have been worth to receive.

There will be DEGREES of rewards for the believers just as there will be DEGREES of punishment for unbelievers in hell and THAT is the CONTEXT of Luke 12......and it has nothing to do with Purgatory.

You are correct in that "Since nothing unclean can enter Heaven, the world to come cannot be Heaven."

With a little Bible study it can be determined correctly that The original words, ουτε εν τουτω τω αιωνι, ουτε εν τω μελλοντι, are rendered, "neither in this age, or dispensation, (namely, the Jewish,) nor in the age, or dispensation, to come, namely, the Christian".

Thus the clause is understood by Macknight, who considers it as importing, that “no expiation was provided for the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, either under the Jewish or Christian dispensations.”
Matthew 12:32 Commentaries: "Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

That means that the verse IS NOT speaking of anything called Purgatory.

Major1 said:

That is just not the case Mike. There is once again no Scripture that validate Purgatory and that is the case with the ones you just posted.

YOU are reading into those verses what YOU want them to say because you believe in Purgatory.
The actual understanding is that there is NO sin committed that the Lord would not forgive because He died for ALL sin at any time.

As for Luke 12:46-48. you have once again interjected what YOU want to see instead of what is actually there.

Those Scriptures actually teach what most everyone else knows and that there will be degrees of punishment in hell.

As Christians we will appear before the judgement seat of Christ. Our judgment will not determine whether or not we are saved BUT instead it will be to give out the rewards we will have been worth to receive.

There will be DEGREES of rewards for the believers just as there will be DEGREES of punishment for unbelievers in hell and THAT is the CONTEXT of Luke 12......and it has nothing to do with Purgatory.

You are correct in that "Since nothing unclean can enter Heaven, the world to come cannot be Heaven."

With a little Bible study it can be determined correctly that The original words, ουτε εν τουτω τω αιωνι, ουτε εν τω μελλοντι, are rendered, "neither in this age, or dispensation, (namely, the Jewish,) nor in the age, or dispensation, to come, namely, the Christian".

Thus the clause is understood by Macknight, who considers it as importing, that “no expiation was provided for the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, either under the Jewish or Christian dispensations.”
Matthew 12:32 Commentaries: "Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

That means that the verse IS NOT speaking of anything called Purgatory.

Click to expand...

I can't follow your reasoning. You say:

Major1 said:

Those Scriptures actually teach what most everyone else knows and that there will be degrees of punishment in hell.

As Christians we will appear before the judgement seat of Christ. Our judgment will not determine whether or not we are saved BUT instead it will be to give out the rewards we will have been worth to receive.

There will be DEGREES of rewards for the believers just as there will be DEGREES of punishment for unbelievers in hell and THAT is the CONTEXT of Luke 12......and it has nothing to do with Purgatory.

Click to expand...

So our reward is beatings?

I'm sorry, what you responded with in not convincing

Major1 said:

There is once again no Scripture that validate Purgatory and that is the case with the ones you just posted

Click to expand...

Yes, you are entitled to your opinion. But don't hold it against me if I don't agree with you....or bible hub

First, Happy Birthday and Happy New Year!


I agree. They do not contradict one another rather they are in harmony. The point Christ in Matthew's account is to underscore the idea of eternal of unforgiveness. He does not say that sin can be forgiven in another age. Furthermore it underscores that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is so severe that it cannot be forgiven, ever. "...In this age or the age or the age to come" means never. That is the plain meaning of the text. The standard RCC apologetic on these texts are tortured in order to explain a doctrine that simply is not taught in the Bible.





1Co 3:11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

1Co 3:12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,

1Co 3:13 each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work.

1Co 3:14 If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward.

1Co 3:15 If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

1Co 3:16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?

1Co 3:17 If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.

1Co 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, he must become foolish, so that he may become wise.



Here, I fixed the quote as you are missing parts v12-15. The reason I included the entire chapter is to establish context. Show me grammatically where the referent has changed mid thought. Grammar aside, this fire is to test every man's work. No RCC I know believes that of purgatory. Purgatorial fire in Roman theology precedes the judgement. This fire is the judgement itself. Notice that sins, punishment and satisfaction are not mentioned here and are necessary components for the doctrine of purgatory. The reason is this text does not teach purgatory.



Simply declaring that evidence does not stand does not make it so. Especially since the evidence you have provided are clear demonstrations of eisogesis and therefore invalid. Then again Rome is forced to employ eisogesis because there is no other way to defend the doctrine of purgatory. Furthermore the reason I find this doctrine so repugnant because it turns the Gospel on its head:


1Co 15:1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,

1Co 15:2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

1Co 15:4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

1Co 15:5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.




Also because it is an innovation on the part of Rome. Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit states:


Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

Col 2:9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

Col 2:10 and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;

Col 2:11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;

Col 2:12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Col 2:13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,

Col 2:14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.


The doctrine developed over a period of centuries as a confluence of several streams of thought. The earliest you are going to find any clear reference to what can be described as purgatory comes late fourth early fifth centuries. Yes, it is an ancient belief but like I said before it is not ancient enough. A really good treatment of this subject is by Jacques Le Goff The Birth of Purgatory. He argues that it doesn't appear until the twelfth century. I don't argue that late of a date but he does make a compelling argument. The point being that it was unknown in the early church and therefore not to be believed by Christians today.

fide said:

I have no idea how to interpret these sentences of yours - could you rephrase them?
1) "The unpardonable sin is UN-FORGIVNESS!" does this mean, The one sin the Lord cannot/willnot forgive in a man, is his refusal to forgive someone? If you mean something else, please clarify.

2) "The rejection of the Lord Jesus Christ is the eternal sin that sends all unbelievers to the lake of fire......NOT Purgatory as there is no such thing."
Does this mean that if a man rejects Christ, this sin results in the lake of fire. That this sin does NOT send him to purgatory. Is THAT what you mean here? Please clarify.

3) "Not one single verse that you posted applies to or suggests a place or a situation where man has to work of [off, I guess?] his sins. NOT ONE!"

Concerning (3), where did you get the (false) idea that purgatory allows a man to "work off" his sins? This is not Catholic teaching, which rather teaches that "in purgatory", souls are and must be passive, not active: they can do NOTHING to purge themselves, cleanse themselves, forgive themselves, or in any way "work" toward their own salvation. God and God alone purges remaining sins from their hearts - sins which are not mortal to the soul, but are venial and can be removed by the cleansing spiritual "fires" that purify the soul.

Concerning (2), the Church teaches that this one unforgivable sin is the intentional, willed refusal to ask forgiveness, of ANY grave sin. In other words, any sin can be forgiven men if they will repent of it, and seek the mercy of the all-merciful God. Stubborn refusal to repent, however, is "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" Who convicts men of their sins, thus allowing sincere repentance and forgiveness.

Click to expand...

1).
I thought that I did make it understandable but I will be glad accommodate you.
The Holy Spirit came into the world to make real the salvation of Christ to the hearts of men. I am sure you will agree to that!

IF a man resists the working of the Holy Spirit of God when He speaks to that man, then there is no forgiveness to that man. I am sure you will agree to that as well. There is NO forgiveness because that man has rejected salvation made real to him by the Holy Spirit, and that is the work of the Spirit of God which is to regenerate man.

Pleae take the time to read Mark 3. I will not post it as it will take up too much space but please open your Bible and read it. The Lord amplifies this matter of the unpardonable sin by saying that it attributes the Spirits work to Satan, that Christ had performed these miracles by Beelzehub when actually He was doing them by the power of the Holy Spirit. You see, they were rejecting the witness of Himself and of the Holy Spirit.

In our day that particular sin cannot be committed because it could only be committed when Jesus was here upon the earth. There is NO act of sin that can be committed today which there is no forgiveness for except "UNforgivness".

What I am saying to you is that is a man resists the Holy Spirt, then there is NO forgiveness for him because forgiveness is what He is bringing.

It is just like being sick and dying in the hospital and the doctor says...."I have a cure for you. Take one of these and you will be cured". But the man refuses the cure and he dies from his rejection of the cure. There is a cure for the illness of SIN and the Holy Spirit applies it but is it is rejected then there is no cure/forgiveness.

That IMO is the only way sin can be pardoned today.

2).
YES.
If a man kills someone and later confesses and asks God for forgiveness and comes to Christ, is he saved and does he go to heaven?
If a man committees adultery and later confess and asks God for forgiveness and come to Christ is he saved and does he go to heaven?
If the same man rejects the Lord Jesus Christ and never comes to Him for forgiveness, does he go to heaven?

The truth still stands; there is one sin for which Christ never made atonement. The person who dies in unbelief can never be saved, no matter how religious he may be. There is no atonement for the person who does not believe on Jesus Christ as his Savior.

3).
Your question seems to be saying that I do not understand the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. That being said, how can anyone who does not know what it is rejected what it is.

Catechism, 1030 says.......
"he souls in Purgatory are assured of salvation. They’ve died in God’s grace and friendship, and will end up in heaven. But they’re not yet in a full state of holiness — the holiness that’s necessary to behold God “face to face” in heaven."

Thus, the spiritual purification of purgatory is possible only for those who are reconciled to God through the saving death of Christ. Catholic theology regarding life after death can be summarized this way. When you die, your soul goes to one of three places:
1). If you die with unforgiven mortal sin, you go to hell.
2). If you die in a state of perfect holiness, you go directly into the presence of God in heaven.
3). If you die as a believer in Christ but in a state less than perfect holiness, you go to purgatory where your soul is purified until you are ready to enter God’s presence in heaven.

Do I have that about right???

Now then, recent Catholic writers and teachers have greatly de-emphasized the suffering aspect of purgatory and spoken of it as a place of spiritual growth, moral reformation, and personal preparation for heaven. Still, the very word purgatory contains within it the notion of being “purged” of your sin. It is very difficult to remove the concept of punishment from purgatory.

In the early 1500s a German monk named Johann Tetzel began selling indulgences, which amounted to a scheme by which the living could free the dead from purgatory by the payment of money. His view is summarized in this well-known couplet:
As soon as the gold in the bucket rings
The rescued soul to heaven springs.

Now, do I have that correct also?????

The question then becomes, still.........where is the Word and or the teaching of Purgatory in the Bible?

Yhen the next question must be..........Does the death of Christ purify us from our sins so that when we die we go directly to heaven or must we be further purified in purgatory?

Hebrews 1:3 supplies a key biblical insight at this point......
“After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.”

I am always amazed at the Catholic believers who accept Purgatory without any Scriptural verification and then they ignore The King James Version gives a slightly different wording to the first phrase: “When he had by himself purged our sins.”

This verse is the closest and ONLY thing to purgatory in the Bible and it doesn’t happen after we die.
It happened 2000 years ago when Christ died on the cross. It’s not something I suffer. It’s something Christ suffered for me. He purged us from our sins. I was dirty, he was clean. He took my dirt that I might be made clean. I am never going to face purgatory because he purged me from my sins. My purgatory was 2000 years ago on the cross when Jesus died in my place. To paraphrase an old gospel song, “What can purge away my sins? Nothing but the blood of Jesus.”

Mike Alexander said:

Yes, you are entitled to your opinion. But don't hold it against me if I don't agree with you....or bible hub

Click to expand...

I would never do that Mike. All I do here is get out the Word of God. You and I must make choices and the right choices fr life can only be found in the Scriptures.

Mike Alexander said:

I can't follow your reasoning. You say:

So our reward is beatings?

I'm sorry, what you responded with in not convincing

Click to expand...

Where did you get the idea of "BEATINGS".

Look at again at the Scriptures and you will see the word "REWARDS".

My response to Fide was to have his quotes, evidently something got messed up in the formatting to I had to remove the routes.

Major1 said:

1).
I thought that I did make it understandable but I will be glad accommodate you.
The Holy Spirit came into the world to make real the salvation of Christ to the hearts of men. I am sure you will agree to that!

IF a man resists the working of the Holy Spirit of God when He speaks to that man, then there is no forgiveness to that man. I am sure you will agree to that as well. There is NO forgiveness because that man has rejected salvation made real to him by the Holy Spirit, and that is the work of the Spirit of God which is to regenerate man.

Pleae take the time to read Mark 3. I will not post it as it will take up too much space but please open your Bible and read it. The Lord amplifies this matter of the unpardonable sin by saying that it attributes the Spirits work to Satan, that Christ had performed these miracles by Beelzehub when actually He was doing them by the power of the Holy Spirit. You see, they were rejecting the witness of Himself and of the Holy Spirit.

In our day that particular sin cannot be committed because it could only be committed when Jesus was here upon the earth. There is NO act of sin that can be committed today which there is no forgiveness for except "UNforgivness".

What I am saying to you is that is a man resists the Holy Spirt, then there is NO forgiveness for him because forgiveness is what He is bringing.

It is just like being sick and dying in the hospital and the doctor says...."I have a cure for you. Take one of these and you will be cured". But the man refuses the cure and he dies from his rejection of the cure. There is a cure for the illness of SIN and the Holy Spirit applies it but is it is rejected then there is no cure/forgiveness.

That IMO is the only way sin can be pardoned today.

2).
YES.
If a man kills someone and later confesses and asks God for forgiveness and comes to Christ, is he saved and does he go to heaven?
If a man committees adultery and later confess and asks God for forgiveness and come to Christ is he saved and does he go to heaven?
If the same man rejects the Lord Jesus Christ and never comes to Him for forgiveness, does he go to heaven?

The truth still stands; there is one sin for which Christ never made atonement. The person who dies in unbelief can never be saved, no matter how religious he may be. There is no atonement for the person who does not believe on Jesus Christ as his Savior.

3).
Your question seems to be saying that I do not understand the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. That being said, how can anyone who does not know what it is rejected what it is.

Catechism, 1030 says.......
"he souls in Purgatory are assured of salvation. They’ve died in God’s grace and friendship, and will end up in heaven. But they’re not yet in a full state of holiness — the holiness that’s necessary to behold God “face to face” in heaven."

Thus, the spiritual purification of purgatory is possible only for those who are reconciled to God through the saving death of Christ. Catholic theology regarding life after death can be summarized this way. When you die, your soul goes to one of three places:
1). If you die with unforgiven mortal sin, you go to hell.
2). If you die in a state of perfect holiness, you go directly into the presence of God in heaven.
3). If you die as a believer in Christ but in a state less than perfect holiness, you go to purgatory where your soul is purified until you are ready to enter God’s presence in heaven.

Do I have that about right???

Now then, recent Catholic writers and teachers have greatly de-emphasized the suffering aspect of purgatory and spoken of it as a place of spiritual growth, moral reformation, and personal preparation for heaven. Still, the very word purgatory contains within it the notion of being “purged” of your sin. It is very difficult to remove the concept of punishment from purgatory.

In the early 1500s a German monk named Johann Tetzel began selling indulgences, which amounted to a scheme by which the living could free the dead from purgatory by the payment of money. His view is summarized in this well-known couplet:
As soon as the gold in the bucket rings
The rescued soul to heaven springs.

Now, do I have that correct also?????

The question then becomes, still.........where is the Word and or the teaching of Purgatory in the Bible?

Yhen the next question must be..........Does the death of Christ purify us from our sins so that when we die we go directly to heaven or must we be further purified in purgatory?

Hebrews 1:3 supplies a key biblical insight at this point......
“After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.”

I am always amazed at the Catholic believers who accept Purgatory without any Scriptural verification and then they ignore The King James Version gives a slightly different wording to the first phrase: “When he had by himself purged our sins.”

This verse is the closest and ONLY thing to purgatory in the Bible and it doesn’t happen after we die.
It happened 2000 years ago when Christ died on the cross. It’s not something I suffer. It’s something Christ suffered for me. He purged us from our sins. I was dirty, he was clean. He took my dirt that I might be made clean. I am never going to face purgatory because he purged me from my sins. My purgatory was 2000 years ago on the cross when Jesus died in my place. To paraphrase an old gospel song, “What can purge away my sins? Nothing but the blood of Jesus.”

Click to expand...

Hello Major. Let me begin here: yes, you rightly summarize (in very broad strokes) the three Catholic possibilities for a soul immediately after death:


(This is OK, leaving out important meanings of the many crucial words used.)

Next, you spoke of the presence or absence of "punishment" in purgatory, and the questionable place of "punishment" due for sin, in the light of the Cross, especially for those you call "believers in Christ".

A loving parent "punishes" his child, why exactly? The point of "punishment" in the context of love is not to inflict suffering in and of itself. The point of discipline is not to satisfy sadism in the persons in authority - the point of discipline is to teach, positively, to not do bad, but rather to choose good. Rephrased, it is to "help" the child stop loving the bad - even though the bad seemed to him to be desirable at the time he transgressed - but rather he should love the good. If he stops desiring the bad, learning that it brings punishment, then he can choose the good next time, maybe. In other words, he can be helped through discipline, freely to love and freely to choose the good, himself.

Life itself, after the Fall from Eden, is for all humanity a time of living in the punishment of the first sin, the "Original Sin." We live under punishment here - we suffer and we die - the consequences of sin in general - with the loving hope in God the Father that we will learn to stop desiring sin ourselves, personally, and will instead seek the good. And Jesus came to bear witness to the very, very Good for which God created us.

If we come to believe in Jesus, we hear Him and seek to follow Him in a life of goodness, truth and love, freely carrying our own cross in the process. The real problem is, human persons even after coming to "believe in Him" in some sense, also hold on to love for this world and the things of this world. Our souls are mixed. Yes, believers love Christ. BUT, generally speaking, NOT with their whole heart, mind, soul and strength - nor do they 100% love neighbor as self.

Believers, for the most part, are "mixed", clinging to mixed loves - one of which is good and holy and welcomed in heaven, but the other of which is not. James points this out, explicitly:


The Greek word translated "double mind" here is δίψυχος - dipsuchos - literally "two-spirited" or "two-souled", from δί - two and ψυχος - life, soul, .... James is exhorting men to fully cast out that "life/soul of the world" which is death, and fully embrace that "life/soul of holy saving faith". He exhorts them to "Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts".

This is the Christian walk: live in His grace, won for us on the Cross, BUT - do all do this? NO. James is exhorting them to DO IT. It is one thing to "claim it" in theory! But what counts, is to DO IT, in truth.

For those believers who do not fully use the holy grace of Christ here and now, and die in His grace fully ready for heaven, THEN the final work of Christ for them awaits them in "purgatory. There they will experience "punishment", the purging of their love for this world that they did not fully repent of and reject, in their lifetime, and what will remain, in their hearts, is the pure love for Christ and His truth, no longer mixed and compromised, no longer half-hearted, no longer any lukewarmness and sitting on the fence, but only the purified love for God and His Truth remaining, THEN his beatitude is fully welcomed and possible.

Athanasius377 said:

First, Happy Birthday and Happy New Year!


I agree. They do not contradict one another rather they are in harmony. The point Christ in Matthew's account is to underscore the idea of eternal of unforgiveness. He does not say that sin can be forgiven in another age. Furthermore it underscores that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is so severe that it cannot be forgiven, ever. "...In this age or the age or the age to come" means never. That is the plain meaning of the text. The standard RCC apologetic on these texts are tortured in order to explain a doctrine that simply is not taught in the Bible.





1Co 3:11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

1Co 3:12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,

1Co 3:13 each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work.

1Co 3:14 If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward.

1Co 3:15 If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

1Co 3:16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?

1Co 3:17 If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.

1Co 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, he must become foolish, so that he may become wise.



Here, I fixed the quote as you are missing parts v12-15. The reason I included the entire chapter is to establish context. Show me grammatically where the referent has changed mid thought. Grammar aside, this fire is to test every man's work. No RCC I know believes that of purgatory. Purgatorial fire in Roman theology precedes the judgement. This fire is the judgement itself. Notice that sins, punishment and satisfaction are not mentioned here and are necessary components for the doctrine of purgatory. The reason is this text does not teach purgatory.



Simply declaring that evidence does not stand does not make it so. Especially since the evidence you have provided are clear demonstrations of eisogesis and therefore invalid. Then again Rome is forced to employ eisogesis because there is no other way to defend the doctrine of purgatory. Furthermore the reason I find this doctrine so repugnant because it turns the Gospel on its head:


1Co 15:1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,

1Co 15:2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

1Co 15:4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

1Co 15:5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.




Also because it is an innovation on the part of Rome. Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit states:


Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

Col 2:9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

Col 2:10 and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;

Col 2:11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;

Col 2:12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Col 2:13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,

Col 2:14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.


The doctrine developed over a period of centuries as a confluence of several streams of thought. The earliest you are going to find any clear reference to what can be described as purgatory comes late fourth early fifth centuries. Yes, it is an ancient belief but like I said before it is not ancient enough. A really good treatment of this subject is by Jacques Le Goff The Birth of Purgatory. He argues that it doesn't appear until the twelfth century. I don't argue that late of a date but he does make a compelling argument. The point being that it was unknown in the early church and therefore not to be believed by Christians today.

Click to expand...

Hello Athanasius377- this discussion is getting 'way too complicated - too many passages, every one of which is interpreted and understood by you (and protestants generally) very differently from the way Catholics hear, interpret and understand. Once again, in my decades-long internet discussion with evangelicals, it is like two persons speaking different languages while using the same words, ending always not one millimeter closer to mutual understanding or agreement.

I tried responding to Major, on the same general points. Please read that post - #71 - maybe it can present the Catholic understanding in a way you can hear....

fide said:

Hello Major. Let me begin here: yes, you rightly summarize (in very broad strokes) the three Catholic possibilities for a soul immediately after death:

1). If you die with unforgiven mortal sin, you go to hell.
2). If you die in a state of perfect holiness, you go directly into the presence of God in heaven.
3). If you die as a believer in Christ but in a state less than perfect holiness, you go to purgatory where your soul is purified until you are ready to enter God’s presence in heaven. ​

(This is OK, leaving out important meanings of the many crucial words used.)

Next, you spoke of the presence or absence of "punishment" in purgatory, and the questionable place of "punishment" due for sin, in the light of the Cross, especially for those you call "believers in Christ".

A loving parent "punishes" his child, why exactly? The point of "punishment" in the context of love is not to inflict suffering in and of itself. The point of discipline is not to satisfy sadism in the persons in authority - the point of discipline is to teach, positively, to not do bad, but rather to choose good. Rephrased, it is to "help" the child stop loving the bad - even though the bad seemed to him to be desirable at the time he transgressed - but rather he should love the good. If he stops desiring the bad, learning that it brings punishment, then he can choose the good next time, maybe. In other words, he can be helped through discipline, freely to love and freely to choose the good, himself.

Life itself, after the Fall from Eden, is for all humanity a time of living in the punishment of the first sin, the "Original Sin." We live under punishment here - we suffer and we die - the consequences of sin in general - with the loving hope in God the Father that we will learn to stop desiring sin ourselves, personally, and will instead seek the good. And Jesus came to bear witness to the very, very Good for which God created us.

If we come to believe in Jesus, we hear Him and seek to follow Him in a life of goodness, truth and love, freely carrying our own cross in the process. The real problem is, human persons even after coming to "believe in Him" in some sense, also hold on to love for this world and the things of this world. Our souls are mixed. Yes, believers love Christ. BUT, generally speaking, NOT with their whole heart, mind, soul and strength - nor do they 100% love neighbor as self.

Believers, for the most part, are "mixed", clinging to mixed loves - one of which is good and holy and welcomed in heaven, but the other of which is not. James points this out, explicitly:

James 1:7 For that person must not suppose that a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways, will receive anything from the Lord.
.............
James 4:8 Draw near to God and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you men of double mind.​

The Greek word translated "double mind" here is δίψυχος - dipsuchos - literally "two-spirited" or "two-souled", from δί - two and ψυχος - life, soul, .... James is exhorting men to fully cast out that "life/soul of the world" which is death, and fully embrace that "life/soul of holy saving faith". He exhorts them to "Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts".

This is the Christian walk: live in His grace, won for us on the Cross, BUT - do all do this? NO. James is exhorting them to DO IT. It is one thing to "claim it" in theory! But what counts, is to DO IT, in truth.

For those believers who do not fully use the holy grace of Christ here and now, and die in His grace fully ready for heaven, THEN the final work of Christ for them awaits them in "purgatory. There they will experience "punishment", the purging of their love for this world that they did not fully repent of and reject, in their lifetime, and what will remain, in their hearts, is the pure love for Christ and His truth, no longer mixed and compromised, no longer half-hearted, no longer any lukewarmness and sitting on the fence, but only the purified love for God and His Truth remaining, THEN his beatitude is fully welcomed and possible.

Click to expand...

You have a wonderful grasp of the English language but the fact is that what you are saying is "Wishful Thinking".

All that you said is what YOU personally believe and note of it is based in the Scriptures.

James 1:7 has its context as TRIALS from verse #1-6.

There are a lot of shallow and superficial saints today. There are many who are insecure as Christians. There are believers who try to be intellectual and who question the Word of God.

May I say to you my friend that the problem with such believers is that they have never grown up, they are still little babies. God gives us testing and trials to pruduce things in us so that we might become full grown children of God.

God must send us trouble so that we can learn patience which will also produce hope and love in our lives. THAT is what James is talking about. BUT NONE of that is seen as PURGATORY my friend.
Everything that James is telling us is for us TODAY while we are alive.

According to your own words and the official RCC doctrine, Purgatory is AFTER DEATH. So that means all the wonderful words you used actually mean nothing! I hate to say that and I do not mean any disrespect to you, but even the most elementary believer can understand the error of what you are saying.

You are trying to make Purgatory the context of James but that is not the case. He is giving us an encouragement so that when we are tested in this life, we will be able to overcome it.

Again I must say to you that there are NO Scriptures which speak to the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory.

Jesus made it clear that the afterlife offers two options, and that both heaven and hell are eternal.

Matt. 7:13-14 also notes..........
"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few."

Again, only two options are provided. There is no third option according to the Scriptures.

Major1 said:

You have a wonderful grasp of the English language but the fact is that what you are saying is "Wishful Thinking".

All that you said is what YOU personally believe and note of it is based in the Scriptures.

James 1:7 has its context as TRIALS from verse #1-6.

There are a lot of shallow and superficial saints today. There are many who are insecure as Christians. There are believers who try to be intellectual and who question the Word of God.

May I say to you my friend that the problem with such believers is that they have never grown up, they are still little babies. God gives us testing and trials to pruduce things in us so that we might become full grown children of God.

God must send us trouble so that we can learn patience which will also produce hope and love in our lives. THAT is what James is talking about. BUT NONE of that is seen as PURGATORY my friend.
Everything that James is telling us is for us TODAY while we are alive.

According to your own words and the official RCC doctrine, Purgatory is AFTER DEATH. So that means all the wonderful words you used actually mean nothing! I hate to say that and I do not mean any disrespect to you, but even the most elementary believer can understand the error of what you are saying.

You are trying to make Purgatory the context of James but that is not the case. He is giving us an encouragement so that when we are tested in this life, we will be able to overcome it.

Again I must say to you that there are NO Scriptures which speak to the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory.

Jesus made it clear that the afterlife offers two options, and that both heaven and hell are eternal.

Matt. 7:13-14 also notes..........
"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few."

Again, only two options are provided. There is no third option according to the Scriptures.

Click to expand...

Yes, the same words, different understandings entirely. If I believed in a God who promised to be with His own "until the close of the age", but let them drift into error that lasted until the 1500's, I would get worried. The God I believe in, however, said this, and meant it:

If you listen carefully, you will hear something new:
Not all of divine revelation was to be written in a book. There is a Holy Spirit, sent by Jesus personally to His Church, to guide her into all the Truth. He, God the Holy Spirit, will glorify the Son - His glory cannot be enclosed between the covers of a Bible. The Bible is the written Word of God, yes! But it is not all that God has revealed by the Spirit to His Church.

To limit God to the understandings and interpretations gleaned from writings alone, "sola scriptura", is to reduce the New Covenant to a "new" version of the Old Covenant in written laws and precepts.

Those who left the Church in the 1500's - and their disciples today - left the Holy Spirit promised by Jesus and all He has taught the Church that is of Jesus. This "reformed" gospel is, simply, in error. "Sola scriptura" is error, from the beginning. Sorry, brother, but truth is truth.

fide said:

Yes, the same words, different understandings entirely. If I believed in a God who promised to be with His own "until the close of the age", but let them drift into error that lasted until the 1500's, I would get worried. The God I believe in, however, said this, and meant it:

Jn 16:12 "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
Jn 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
Jn 16:14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.​

If you listen carefully, you will hear something new:.

Matthew 7:13-14 also notes, "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." Again, only two options are provided. There is no third option.. There is a Holy Spirit, sent by Jesus personally to His Church, to guide her into all the Truth. He, God the Holy Spirit, will glorify the Son - His glory cannot be enclosed between the covers of a Bible. The Bible is the written Word of God, yes! But it is not all that God has revealed by the Spirit to His Church.

To limit God to the understandings and interpretations gleaned from writings alone, "sola scriptura", is to reduce the New Covenant to a "new" version of the Old Covenant in written laws and precepts.

Those who left the Church in the 1500's - and their disciples today - left the Holy Spirit promised by Jesus and all He has taught the Church that is of Jesus. This "reformed" gospel is, simply, in error. "Sola scriptura" is error, from the beginning. Sorry, brother, but truth is truth.

Click to expand...

Now please....lets be honest. The one and only reason you said......................
"Not all of divine revelation was to be written in a book"...is because you are a Catholic believer and you have been told your whole life that Catholic TRADITION means more than the written Word of God.

YOU and I and everyone else know that my dear friend.

It hurts and causes you and all Catholic believers to become angry and combative when someone tells you that you just might be wrong and the RCC just might be wrong.

You are correct in that the GLORY of God can not be contained in a book. However His TRUTH certainly can and that is what the Scriptures are.

It has never been said that GLORY was the point of the Scriptures so right there you are in error.

When understanding is placed into the hands of men we get Traditions and those directions are always tainted by sin.

To tell you the truth my friend, I do not think that you know the meaning of Sola Scriptura. Again, the ONLY reason you reject it is because the RCC rejects it and you are a Catholic.

Sola Scriptura is NOT Doctrine and was never said to be. It simply means that in matters of eternal salvation, all we need to know is found in the Scriptures. YOU however have bought into the false teachings of men who have ADDED to the Scriptures such things like.......
Purgatory and the Rosary and praying for the dead, the sinlessness of Mary and the list goes on and on and on.

IF you do not accept Bible Christianity and choose Cathosolism over that, then that is entirely your choice. All I am, saying is that what you are saying IS NOT BIBLICAL!

You can believe anything you want to believe but you can not do it and claim that it is Bible Christianity when it clearly is not.

IF Purgatory was Biblical, you would simply post those Scriptures and the conversation would be over.
IF Mary was sinless, you would simply post the Scriptures and the conversation would be over.
Same with the Assumption of Mary, and the Rosary, and calling a priest Father and bishops not being allowed to marry.

It is just that simple my friend.

The main problem there is that our friend Fide states a number of propositions but doesn't provide anything that would substantiate them. Why do we know that not all divine revelation was given in the form of Scripture? Why would the Holy Spirit guiding the church into all truth mean giving new revelation that contradicts or amends what God gave in Scripture? Can he not lead in any other way? What would make anyone claim that Sola Scripture reduces the New Testament to rules and regulations when the better part of it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Why should we think that the Christians who reformed the Church of Rome in the 1500s "left the Holy Spirit?"

There's no there...there! (as they say in politics).

fide said:

Hello Athanasius377- this discussion is getting 'way too complicated - too many passages, every one of which is interpreted and understood by you (and protestants generally) very differently from the way Catholics hear, interpret and understand. Once again, in my decades-long internet discussion with evangelicals, it is like two persons speaking different languages while using the same words, ending always not one millimeter closer to mutual understanding or agreement.

I tried responding to Major, on the same general points. Please read that post - #71 - maybe it can present the Catholic understanding in a way you can hear....

Click to expand...

Hello Fide,

I agree that it is getting too complicated and that's really the whole point. Look at the plain meaning of the text and not through an external source and that complication evaporates.

I understand the Roman position on purgatory as I gave what I thought was a pretty accurate definition early on to the OP. I reject that position. The OP was asking what purgatory was and I was happy to simply give the definition for education sake but objected strongly when it was suggested that this was found in the early church fathers. I get that Roman Catholics would defend their church's teaching. My issue is when someone makes a false statement even by ignorance it should not go uncontested.

Albion said:

The main problem there is that our friend Fide states a number of propositions but doesn't provide anything that would substantiate them. Why do we know that not all divine revelation was given in the form of Scripture? Why would the Holy Spirit guiding the church into all truth mean giving new revelation that contradicts or amends what God gave in Scripture? Can he not lead in any other way? What would make anyone claim that Sola Scripture reduces the New Testament to rules and regulations when the better part of it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Why should we think that the Christians who reformed the Church of Rome in the 1500s "left the Holy Spirit?"

There's no there...there! (as they say in politics).

Click to expand...

You are very correct and I agree with your observation!

Major1 said:

Now please....lets be honest. The one and only reason you said......................
"Not all of divine revelation was to be written in a book"...is because you are a Catholic believer and you have been told your whole life that Catholic TRADITION means more than the written Word of God.
..

Click to expand...

Thank you for this invitation and opening to be honest!

Yes, let's do be honest: I am not a life-long Catholic - I am a "revert", having left the Church in early adulthood, because like many in young adulthood, I knew more than anyone else in the known world. I knew better than to even believe in God. So I left the Church as soon as I got out of the house, and into college. First it was agnosticism, then atheism. After graduation I was working as a research engineer, when I discovered non-theistic humanism - this is where the journey home began, actually. To make the long story short, I became a "born-again evangelical", sola-scriptura of course, having encountered Jesus and a whole new life in His Word, Holy Scripture.

To shorten that phase of my life, let me merely say that Scripture "alone" - illuminated by the Holy Spirit without doubt - convicted me that "find the church that you like best" was an ugly creation of sinful men, was not God's will at all. He said clearly (Jn 17) that His will was that all who were His should be ONE, and for very important reason: that the world can come to believe! READ this, brother:

Division among Christians is the cause of disbelief in the world! The world cannot convert, when Christians cannot even agree among themselves!

Yes, I was convicted. In my youthful arrogance I had left the Church that I saw filled with errors and emptiness, to become not part of any solution, but to become part of the problem! "Denominations" were NOT the creation of God, who wants ONE Church. I knew two things, with no doubt:
1) I needed to return to the Catholic Church - His original created ecclesia;
2) I needed to really learn what this Church believes and teaches, and why - not merely my opinions, but the truth: what does the Church believe, and teach.

So I did. I returned, but cautiously. I returned to full-time student life in a Catholic university, to study and to learn about this Church, this Faith that I rejected in almost complete ignorance as a young "adult" (in years, if not in wisdom).

• That was now some decades ago. I did learn; I did mature; I did grow. I can say with confidence, the Catholic Church is the one Church of divine intention and will. There are problems in the Church - as there are in any group of men anywhere - namely, sin - but no error.
• Not all in the one Church are holy saints - but some are.
• There is no error in what the Church formally teaches and believes. It all fits together, into one consistent whole, of origin that is too beautiful to even be possible for men to fabricate or even "touch up!" This is of God.
• The moral teachings of the Church are true, all true.
• The Sacraments truly communicate holy divine grace - which is a share in the divine life.
• The Holy Spirit is truly here, guiding all who seek the fullness of divine Truth, leading seekers into the fullness of prayer: intomate personal communion with God the Holy Trinity.

Athanasius377 said:

Hello Fide,

I agree that it is getting too complicated and that's really the whole point. Look at the plain meaning of the text and not through an external source and that complication evaporates.

I understand the Roman position on purgatory as I gave what I thought was a pretty accurate definition early on to the OP. I reject that position. The OP was asking what purgatory was and I was happy to simply give the definition for education sake but objected strongly when it was suggested that this was found in the early church fathers. I get that Roman Catholics would defend their church's teaching. My issue is when someone makes a false statement even by ignorance it should not go uncontested.

Click to expand...

Well, I find that the complication evaporates when one can back away enough to see the whole - the consistent, coherent, living, fruitful, enduring whole of what Jesus came and died to give us. The problem is not ignorance - it is disbelief.